Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ASPA
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] International Debate
Google
Renger
QUOTE
The first legislation adopted by the US Congress, in August 2002, is known as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). This legislation, known as the "Hague Invasion Act" contains provisions restricting US cooperation with the ICC; making US support of peacekeeping missions largely contingent on achieving impunity for all US personnel; and even granting the President permission to use “any means necessary” to free US citizens and allies from ICC custody in The Hague. The legislation, however, contains waivers that make all of these provisions non-binding, yet the Bush administration has not utilized these waivers and continues to pressure countries around the world to conclude bilateral immunity agreements – or otherwise lose essential US military assistance.

In December 2004, Congress subsequently adopted the Nethercutt Amendment, as part of the US Foreign Appropriations Bill. This legislation is far more wide-reaching than ASPA and authorizes the loss of Economic Support Funds to all countries, including many key US allies, which have ratified the ICC treaty but have not signed a bilateral immunity agreement with the US. While the President has the authority to waive the provisions of the Amendment, it poses the threat of broad cuts in foreign assistance, including funds for cooperation in international security and terrorism, economic and democratic development, human rights, and promoting peace processes.
The first legislation adopted by the US Congress, in August 2002, is known as the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). This legislation, known as the "Hague Invasion Act" contains provisions restricting US cooperation with the ICC; making US support of peacekeeping missions largely contingent on achieving impunity for all US personnel; and even granting the President permission to use “any means necessary” to free US citizens and allies from ICC custody in The Hague. The legislation, however, contains waivers that make all of these provisions non-binding, yet the Bush administration has not utilized these waivers and continues to pressure countries around the world to conclude bilateral immunity agreements – or otherwise lose essential US military assistance.

In December 2004, Congress subsequently adopted the Nethercutt Amendment, as part of the US Foreign Appropriations Bill. This legislation is far more wide-reaching than ASPA and authorizes the loss of Economic Support Funds to all countries, including many key US allies, which have ratified the ICC treaty but have not signed a bilateral immunity agreement with the US. While the President has the authority to waive the provisions of the Amendment, it poses the threat of broad cuts in foreign assistance, including funds for cooperation in international security and terrorism, economic and democratic development, human rights, and promoting peace processes.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/USandICC/ASPA.html


In Europe, and in particular the Netherlands, this legislation has been looked at as a dangerous precedent. Everybody in the world knows that the U.S. is the only superpower left in the world and that it should be one of the most important participants in struggle for justice in the world. Yet with this legislation it looks like the U.S. is placing itself above one of the most important international institutions of the world.

My question for debate is:

Should this U.S. legislation (ASPA) be abolished as soon as possible or should it be upholded?
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.